Plaintiff
has been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing
No. 5.) The court now conducts an initial review of the
Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is
appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

SUMMARY
OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff
initiated this action against Moulton College and Activate
Learning on April 6, 2016. (Filing No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges
that she entered into a written employment contract with
Defendants on August 7, 2015, and that Defendants breached
the contract. Liberally construed, the Complaint suggests
that Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a teacher.
Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $261, 283.00, which
represents the unpaid potion of her employment package.

APPLICABLE
STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must dismiss a complaint or
any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Pro se
plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to
“nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable
to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

“The
essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair
notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a
general indication of the type of litigation
involved.’” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A.,760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Hopkins v. Saunders,199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.
1999)). However, “[a] pro se complaint must be
liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a
lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian,
760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).

DISCUSSION

Liberally
construed, Plaintiff has asserted cognizable claims against
Defendants for breach of an employment contract. In
particular, Plaintiff claims Defendants breached the
employment contract by, among other things, refusing to
reimburse her for certain work-related expenses, failing to
compensate her in a timely manner, and refusing to pay
Plaintiff the remainder of her salary due under the contract.

It
appears the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this
action. Plaintiff alleges subject-matter jurisdiction exists
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, commonly referred to as
“diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction. Under
§ 1332, federal district courts have original
jurisdiction over actions involving “citizens of a
State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). In addition, for diversity
jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must be
greater than $75, 000.00. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
she is a Nebraska resident. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendants’ corporate addresses are in England and that
Defendants are incorporated under the laws of the United
Kingdom. Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75, 000.00.
Accepting these allegations as true, diversity jurisdiction
exists. Accordingly, the court will allow this matter to
proceed to service of process.

IT IS
ORDERED:

1. The clerk’s office is directed to complete summons
forms and USM-285 forms using the addresses provided by
Plaintiff in the Complaint (Filing No. 1), and forward them
and a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Marshals
Service.

2. The clerk’s office shall also complete a USM-94 form
for each Defendant to request service in accordance with the
provisions of sub-paragraph (a) of the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the Hague Convention. (See USM-94 form, Check
Box (a)). The address of the receiving authority on the
USM-94 forms should be listed as follows: The Senior ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.